Appeal 6001018

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are whether or not the proposal would be a) inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and b) subject to biodiversity net gain requirements.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt, outside of specified exceptions, should be regarded as inappropriate development.

It is unclear from the evidence whether the proposal is being argued as a replacement building under paragraph 154 (d) of the Framework. That said, there was a dwelling on the appeal site which was demolished in 2024. There is no compelling argument pertaining to whether Hazelwood is a village and thus whether or not the proposals would be acceptable under 154 (e).

Paragraph 154 (g) relates to the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of [name] (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Policy 49 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (LP) provides a similar exception but refers to development not having a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, rather than causing substantial harm thereto. The Council appear to have only used the LP for their assessment against this exception. The Framework is the most up to date expression of national Green Belt policy, and less restrictive than the LP in this regard.

The glossary to the Framework sets out the definition of PDL for its purposes. It explicitly excludes land in built up areas. It gives examples in its reference to “such as......” but is clear that previously developed land, for the Framework’s purposes, cannot be in a built-up area. What is a built up area is a matter of judgement, and it need not be defined settlement.

The appeal site is a plot of land in an established street scene of other dwellings. [address] runs off [address] North, itself connected to three other spur roads. Taken together, these roads serve a substantial number of houses. Such that one could only conclude that the appeal site is in a built-up area. Thus, it cannot be PDL for the Framework’s purposes. The proposals would be in an infill type of development. The appeal site is a small, single plot width gap within and part of an established street scene between two other dwellings. However, and to be acceptable as such under 154 (g), the site still needs to be PDL.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework concerns the development of grey belt. For its purposes, grey belt can be PDL, or land that does not strongly contribute to any of the Green Belt purposes referred to in sections (a) (b) or (d) of paragraph 143. The appeal site is a former dwelling and garden site, in a built up area and amongst other built development of a relatively high density. It does not perform a function to check the unrestricted sprawl of large bult up areas, nor preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. There are also no issues concerning the preservation of the setting or special character of historic towns.

With the above and the remaining relevant parts of paragraph 155 in mind, there is clearly an unmet need for the proposed development in that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites the Framework requires. I have picked this up in more detail below, but this constitutes an unmet need for the purposes of footnote 56.

In terms of the question of locational sustainability, the appeal site does not appear to be within a settlement despite the area being built up. Cudham is some considerable distance to the south and Orpington similarly situated to the north. Each is accessed along narrow single carriageway unlit rural roads without segregated footways. Whilst limited, there is a bus route that serves the area. I am mindful of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. In particular the former stating, amongst other things, that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. It is also the case that, up until very recently, there was a dwelling on the appeal site.

Whilst it is unclear that the bus route on which the appeal site finds itself is sufficiently reliable to meet day to day needs, there is some public transport available and as such the appeal scheme would not wholly rely on the use of the private car. Specifically though, and in net terms, there would be no uplift in the local population and thus no net change in terms of journeys to and from the appeal site. It was previously, and very recently, a destination in its own right. The appeal scheme is not advanced as a replacement dwelling for the purposes of assessing whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, but it is nonetheless the case that the proposals would site a dwelling in the place of one that was there up until very recently.

With this and the above in mind, and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the appeal scheme would satisfy the relevant requirements of paragraph 155 of the Framework. It would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would accordingly satisfy the Framework in this regard, and the Green Belt protection aims of Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021. [name] have found that the proposed development would not be inappropriate, I am not required to consider its effect on openness.

The evidence suggests that the scheme would be exempt from BNG requirements because it would be a self-build/custom build project. However, and in the absence of a suitably robust mechanism such as a planning obligation/legal agreement or other means, the development would not be properly secured as a self/custom build and would consequently revert to a being an open market dwelling. I.e. any grant of planning permission for the appeal scheme could not be certain of it being for a self-build dwelling.

I have considered the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition, but I have no sufficiently detailed evidence to know what the current baseline of the site is for the purposes of establishing a metric and resultantly I am unable to understand what a gain would equate to in either quantitative or qualitative terms. Furthermore, and adopting the precautionary principle, I could not recommend granting a planning permission for works which may, in so implementing them, affect a site to which assessment needs to be undertaken as to its value and/or condition in biodiversity terms prior. With this and the above in mind, the proposed development would be liable to provide BNG under the statutory duty.

The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such a situation, the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date and permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key ones for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The appeal scheme would not be acceptable in ecological terms, given it cannot be demonstrated that it would provide the appropriately, statutorily required, net gain for biodiversity. Having regard to the requirements of the Framework in these respects, principally in section 15, I ascribe the adverse effects here substantial weight.

The scheme would provide a dwelling, but not in net terms given there was one there previously. There would therefore be no difference to the Council’s supply. There would be some other benefits of an economic and social nature through construction and occupation, but these will be time and scale limited respectively. The scheme does not provide affordable housing. I have resolved the matter of the site’s locational sustainability, and the proposals would seem to make an effective use of land that had has been developed before. There is nothing to suggest that the design would be unacceptable. Some of these matters would be a lack of harm. With this and the above in mind, the benefits of the proposals would be worthy of moderate weight.

Accordingly, the adverse impacts of the proposals would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the above assessments against the Framework into account. Such that the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

The appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, as a result, it would comply with the development plan in that respect. It would not however satisfy the statutory duty for biodiversity net gain as set out by the Environment Act 2021. This is a significant material consideration which indicates a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, and the reason why I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.